CRM-M-16416-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 132 CRM-M-16416-2025 Date of decision: 24.07.2025 Sudesh Rani ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and Anr. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present: Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.(ORAL) The present petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing of order dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, in an appeal bearing CRA-49 of 2025, whereby, while suspending the sentence of the petitioner, awarded to him in complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, learned Court below directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within 30 days. 2. The present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as N.I. Act) had been filed by the complainant with the submissions that the petitioner agreed to sell her house vide registered sale deed No.2254 dated 08.11.2013 to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- and received Rs.30,00,000/- in cash from the complainant. However sale deed was not executed and petitioner agreed to pay back the aforesaid amount. The petitioner in order to discharge his legal liability had issued a cheque bearing No.012565 on 28.12.2018 JYOTI 2025.07.28 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16416-2025 2 amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- drawn upon Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh. On presentation of the same, it was dishonoured and returned with the remarks ‘Cheque destroyed in the system’ vide memo dated 05.01.2019. 3. Vide judgment and order dated 14.01.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act with a direction that the accused will pay compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- i.e. 1.5 times of the cheque amount, to the complainant so as to compensate the complainant for the harassment on account of dishonour of the cheque in question. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 13.02.2025, suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to depositing 20% of the compensation amount within 30 days of passing of the order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the learned lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts in the right perspective and imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation and such a condition is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2741 of 2023 (@SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4927 of 2023 Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, decided on 04.09.2023. Speaking through Justice Abhay S. Oka, it has been held as follows:- "6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of JYOTI 2025.07.28 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16416-2025 3 the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. 7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an petitioner who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said 4 conclusion must be recorded." 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari (supra), the lower Appellate Court was required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not. The impugned order dated 13.02.2025, whereby, the condition of depositing 20% of compensation amount has been imposed for granting suspension of sentence upon the petitioner is hereby set aside. The learned lower Appellate Court is directed to re-examine the case after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and decide whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by learned trial Court. 6. The matter is remanded back to the learned lower Appellate Court with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra). 7. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 24.07.2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) jyoti3 JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No JYOTI 2025.07.28 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document